• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Justice Scalia: either make a damn law or amend the constitution you lazy f*cks

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

speculawyer

Member
I'm generally not surprised by Scalia's terrible views and decisions. But this one . . . wow.
Using his "originalist'' philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of "separate but equal'' public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/scalia-on-brown-v-board-o_n_335591.html

This is what happens when you substitute ideology for reason & common sense.

Edit: The reporters fucked it up? Damn, I hate it when that happens and I look like the fool.
 
V

Viewt

Member
"I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right. "Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do,'' he continued.

"Hitler developed a wonderful automobile,'' Scalia said. "What does that prove?''

"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Click to expand...
Yikes.
 
M

MIMIC

Banned
"The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''

:lol

America's forbidden lust for equality.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
As I suspected, Justice Scalia did not say he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The newspaper account is incorrect and took his remarks out of context. The author of the article, Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, owes Justice Scalia an apology.

And I apologize for quoting this incorrect article in my original post.

Here is the video of the event:

At 23:45 Justice Scalia is clearly misquoted. He says that he stands with Justice Harlan, who dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson. He argues that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination.
Click to expand...

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/10/justice-scalia-comes-clean-on-brown-v.html

Sloppy journalism.
 
D

Dali

Member
When you're in for life you don't need to parse your words.

edit:

Just read the error. My comment still applies.
 
B

Binabik15

Member
The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.
Click to expand...

That I agree with up to a point. But not every change in culture can be ignored by the constitution if you want it to protect everyone evenly.

I bet we´d differ about who needs constitutional protection :lol
 
D

Dennis

Banned
The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.
Click to expand...
That is actually quite an astute observation there - because that is exactly what a constitution is. It attempts to set limits for what future generations can do with the nation.
 
C

Calcaneus

Member
He had better have been misquoted, it would be frightening to know we have someone who believes that stuff in the Supreme Court.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
I am forcibly reminded of that Onion blurb:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40087

Genie Grants Scalia Strict Constructionist Interpretation Of Wish


WASHINGTON, DC—A genie freed from a battered oil lamp by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted the conservative jurist a strict constructionist interpretation of his wish for "a hundred billion bucks" Monday. "Sim sim salabim! Your wish is my command!" the genie proclaimed amid flashes of light and purple smoke, immediately filling the Supreme Court building with a massive herd of wild male antelopes. When Justice Scalia complained that the "bucks" had razed the U.S. Supreme Court building, trampling and killing several of his clerks and bringing traffic in the nation's capital to a standstill for hours, the genie said, "Your honor, your wish is a sacred and unalterable document whose interpretation is not subject to the whims of society and changing social context."
 
J

JayDubya

Banned
DennisK4 said:
That is actually quite an astute observation there - because that is exactly what a constitution is. It attempts to set limits for what future generations can do with the nation.
Click to expand...

I'm actually wondering about the context and surrounding sentences, which is why I'm watching the video.

Haven't gotten that far yet.

I would not say that its whole purpose is to constrain societal desires, though that is certainly one thing it does.

The purpose of a national constitution is to establish the rule of law by setting up the parameters for a government. It is a contract. It states, explicitly, what a government may do, and what it may not do.

Our constitution is, or was, designed with a delicate system of checks and balances. It is and was not perfect or immutable, but it is the contract we have. A well-designed constitutional republic does provide checks against mob rule democracy, however, and that does constrain, as he put it.

It is theoretically possible for people voting in large enough numbers to amend the Constitution to change it to say anything. However, requiring that step first makes many such changes less probable. You could call it it a "Do we really want to do this?" factor.
 
C

cntr

Banned
DennisK4 said:
That is actually quite an astute observation there - because that is exactly what a constitution is. It attempts to set limits for what future generations can do with the nation.
Click to expand...

We have an amendment process, though.
 
S

SnakeswithLasers

Member
JayDubya said:
I'm actually wondering about the context and surrounding sentences, which is why I'm watching the video.

Haven't gotten that far yet.

I would not say that its whole purpose is to constrain societal desires, though that is certainly one thing it does.

The purpose of a national constitution is to establish the rule of law by setting up the parameters for a government. It is a contract. It states, explicitly, what a government may do, and what it may not do.

Our constitution is, or was, designed with a delicate system of checks and balances. It is and was not perfect or immutable, but it is the contract we have. A well-designed constitutional republic does provide checks against mob rule democracy, however, and that does constrain, as he put it.

It is theoretically possible for people voting in large enough numbers to amend the Constitution to change it to say anything. However, requiring that step first makes many such changes less probable. You could call it it a "Do we really want to do this?" factor.
Click to expand...

See also: California.
 
S

Skiptastic

Member
X-Ninji said:
We have an amendment process, though.
Click to expand...

Which is in the Constitution, which provides the guidelines for how to change the Constitution. So therefore, it is restricting the desires of a people, but it tells them how to change what those restrictions are. :)
 
G

giga

Member
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
K

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I'd been under the impression that America's system of government was set up to prevent the majority from simply getting whatever they want at the expense of a minority.

Such as, say, keeping white people from forcing black people to use the back door or another school for no reason more crucial to human welfare than the white folk dun' like the look of the "coloreds".
 
J

JayDubya

Banned
SnakeswithLasers said:
See also: California.
Click to expand...

Correct. California's state government is an excellent example of the trouble with mob rule.


This is pretty good: Scalia talking about the death penalty for minors @ 5 minutes in, and again @ 10: he's eloquent and absolutely correct.

I'm surprised there's no HuffPo piece on "Scalia sez: kill childrenz!!1"
 
S

Skittleguy

Ring a Bell for me
scalia.jpg

The man looks too much like Nixon to be trusted.
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
Kaijima said:
I'd been under the impression that America's system of government was set up to prevent the majority from simply getting whatever they want at the expense of a minority.

Such as, say, keeping white people from forcing black people to use the back door or another school for no reason more crucial to human welfare than the white folk dun' like the look of the "coloreds".
Click to expand...

Theoretically that's correct. Mob rule is discouraged by it being a representative democracy, and the power of judges to strike down laws as unconstitutional prevents rights violations.
 
C

cubicle47b

Member
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Click to expand...

"Constrain the desires of the current society" makes it almost sound evil when it's not. He's just for a strict interpretation of the constitution instead of loose (which he basically looks at as the whims of the American people).

edit: I think both judges make good arguments for their interpretation of the constitution on that under 18 death penalty case.
 
F

Fox318

Member
JayDubya said:
Correct. California's state government is an excellent example of the trouble with mob rule.


This is pretty good: Scalia talking about the death penalty for minors @ 5 minutes in, and again @ 10: he's eloquent and absolutely correct.

I'm surprised there's no HuffPo piece on "Scalia sez: kill childrenz!!1"
Click to expand...
abmux3.jpg
 
J

JayDubya

Banned
Tamanon said:
Theoretically that's correct. Mob rule is discouraged by it being a representative democracy, and the power of judges to strike down laws as unconstitutional prevents rights violations.
Click to expand...

The rub, as Scalia sees it, is that not liking something is not grounds to say it is unconstitutional.

In the video there's some spirited chatter about the court's decision banning states from issuing the death penalty for convicted minors.

To paraphrase Scalia:

My personal values or your personal values saying "this is wrong" is not enough; in 1791, this was a common penalty for felonies, and in some common law jurisdictions they set a standard for no one under 13... death is death then and now, 18 is 18 then and now, it wasn't "cruel and unusual" then, this was ratified then, the 8th amendment hasn't changed, so on what grounds can you stand there and say that on 8th amendment grounds, we have the right to intervene?

Don't like it? Change the law itself, or pass a law in your state.
Click to expand...

And he's abso-fucking-lutely correct.


* * *

Also? This needs a thread title change.
 
J

JayDubya

Banned
ItsInMyVeins said:
Here I thought that was your whole schtick, man.
Click to expand...

Very similar. The "schtick" is sound, wonderful even. Would that Scalia be as good as his schtick and wholly consistent in its application.
 
P

Pristine_Condition

Member
I read the correction, but thought I'd reply to this:

Cloudy said:
Does anyone doubt that Thomas agrees with him? :lol
Click to expand...

It would, because Thomas was a product of integrated schools. He was the only black person in his predominantly-white high school, and went to Holy Cross and Yale.

Wouldn't surprise me if other black people held this view though. Some quite reasonable and educated people in the black community have in the past, and still do today.

In fact, many black scholars, including W. E. B. Du Bois, disagreed with the idea of promoting integration over other goals. Du Bois resigned from the NAACP in protest of their stance in 1934, believing that blacks could do better within their own communities at providing commerce, education, social and religious opportunities for blacks than they could within a more integrated system. Many other black scholars agreed with him at the time, during the time of the nationwide debate over Brown, and beyond, like Malcolm X and Stokely Charmichael in the late '60s-early '70s.

Even today, some black scholars argue that the decision may have done more harm than good long-term for black success in education.
 
E

Evlar

Banned
Strange that Scalia appears to believe a Constitution, or an amendment to a Constitution, may only pass when all existing laws are already in compliance with the amendment. It seems indeed counter-factual from the history of ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
S

Skiptastic

Member
Kaijima said:
I'd been under the impression that America's system of government was set up to prevent the majority from simply getting whatever they want at the expense of a minority.

Such as, say, keeping white people from forcing black people to use the back door or another school for no reason more crucial to human welfare than the white folk dun' like the look of the "coloreds".
Click to expand...

You realize that our Constitution originally allowed for slavery, right? That alone should have given you an idea that your impression was wrong from the start.
 
I

itsinmyveins

Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
JayDubya said:
Very similar. The "schtick" is sound, wonderful even. Would that Scalia be as good as his schtick and wholly consistent in its application.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I meant calling everything unconstitutional :p
 
J

JayDubya

Banned
ItsInMyVeins said:
Oh no, I meant calling everything unconstitutional :p
Click to expand...

If you want to be that broad, then that's the "schtick" of every supreme court justice, and every critic of every supreme court justice.

Good exchange...

Breyer: "Would you sentence someone to execution for embezzlement?"

Scalia: "*I* would not sentence someone to execution for embezzlement... but it's not 'unconstitutional.'"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Linda Brown, whose attempt to enrol in an all-white school led to a landmark US civil rights ruling, has died at 76
4
1K
Mohonky replied
  • Locked
Justices posed to make Public Sector unions "right to work"
1
1K
Cornballer replied
  • Locked
Creationist Lawmaker Says Noah’s Ark Was Found, Rocks Prove God Created Earth
2
62
9K
Xe4 replied
  • Locked
Ted Cruz Vows to Put Hard-Core Conservatives on the Supreme Court
2
75
8K
Mr. Blonde replied
  • Locked
Top anti-gay lawyer inadvertently suggests that Brown v. Board of Education was wrong
8
2K
Cosmo Clock 21 replied
Top Bottom